José Otero Dr. Michael T. Williamson ENGL 864 26 June 2014 Colonialism and Postcolonialism Response The word “colonialism,” like “racism” or “sexism” brings to mind extreme images. We imagine armies with superior weapons killing and conquering a peaceful people, taking their land, and essentially erasing their existence through assimilation and genocide. While I think that image holds true in many cases, it limits our appreciation of colonialism to only the cases where it is seen in the extreme. But Felicia Hemans’ poem “The Landing of the Pilgrim Fathers in New England” also shares a colonial mindset. In fact, I would argue that Hemans does a lot of work in the poem to distance the pilgrims from the very critique I am providing. In the second stanza, she defines the pilgrims as “a band of exiles” (7). In other words, they did not want to come to the Americas; they were forced to. I will leave it up to people with good historical knowledge to debate whether this is the case, but as far as the language of the poem is concerned, it makes the case that the pilgrims are not there of their free will. To further her case, Hemans writes that Not as the conqueror comes, They, the true-hearted came; Not with the roll of the stirring drums, And the trumpet that sings of fame. (9-12) Here, Hemans acknowledges that there are people who come to other lands to conquer the people who live there, and oftentimes, simply to gain fame. For Hemans, however, the pilgrims are not part of that group. They did not come to conquer or to win fame; they are exiles. Ironically, even as exiles, they do not come “in silence and in fear” (14); instead they come “with their hymns of lofty cheer” (16). Although exiled, they feel that they have reached a place where they can be free. In fact, they believe nature is actually calling to them and “this was their welcome home!” (24). This is all very beautiful and very “American”; we like to think of our country as being a welcoming place where people can be free. But where are the native peoples? Where are the people telling the pilgrims to make themselves at home? Instead, the pilgrims simply claim it as their home. As we move to the end of the poem, we learn why they were exiled and why this new land is so wonderful to them: Ay, call it holy ground, The soil where first they trod! They have left unstain’d what there they found— Freedom to worship God. (37-40) This last stanza reinforces the idea that the pilgrims are completely innocent of the genocide of native peoples prior to and after their arrival. After all, they left the ground without a stain. But aren’t they complicit in that colonization and genocide to some degree? I realize that things can be overdetermined rather quickly, but in a very real way, they have come into someone’s house and claimed their living room as their home. And even if they do not personally involve themselves in the violence of colonization, aren’t they benefiting from and dependent on it? And why does Hemans erase Native Americans from the poem? Perhaps she is being somewhat prophetic. Native Americans have essentially been erased from the non-Native American imagination as a real people, which allows for people to debate the appropriateness of calling a sports team the “redskins,” as if there is anything to debate. But this is the power of narrative. We write the stories in the way that we would like to read them. And we rewrite the stories that don’t fit our views of the world or may put a critical eye on ourselves.
Dr. Michael T. Williamson
ENGL 864
26 June 2014
Colonialism and Postcolonialism Response
The word “colonialism,” like “racism” or “sexism” brings to mind extreme images. We imagine armies with superior weapons killing and conquering a peaceful people, taking their land, and essentially erasing their existence through assimilation and genocide. While I think that image holds true in many cases, it limits our appreciation of colonialism to only the cases where it is seen in the extreme. But Felicia Hemans’ poem “The Landing of the Pilgrim Fathers in New England” also shares a colonial mindset. In fact, I would argue that Hemans does a lot of work in the poem to distance the pilgrims from the very critique I am providing. In the second stanza, she defines the pilgrims as “a band of exiles” (7). In other words, they did not want to come to the Americas; they were forced to. I will leave it up to people with good historical knowledge to debate whether this is the case, but as far as the language of the poem is concerned, it makes the case that the pilgrims are not there of their free will.
To further her case, Hemans writes that
Not as the conqueror comes,
They, the true-hearted came;
Not with the roll of the stirring drums,
And the trumpet that sings of fame. (9-12)
Here, Hemans acknowledges that there are people who come to other lands to conquer the people who live there, and oftentimes, simply to gain fame. For Hemans, however, the pilgrims are not part of that group. They did not come to conquer or to win fame; they are exiles. Ironically, even as exiles, they do not come “in silence and in fear” (14); instead they come “with their hymns of lofty cheer” (16). Although exiled, they feel that they have reached a place where they can be free. In fact, they believe nature is actually calling to them and “this was their welcome home!” (24). This is all very beautiful and very “American”; we like to think of our country as being a welcoming place where people can be free. But where are the native peoples? Where are the people telling the pilgrims to make themselves at home? Instead, the pilgrims simply claim it as their home.
As we move to the end of the poem, we learn why they were exiled and why this new land is so wonderful to them:
Ay, call it holy ground,
The soil where first they trod!
They have left unstain’d what there they found—
Freedom to worship God. (37-40)
This last stanza reinforces the idea that the pilgrims are completely innocent of the genocide of native peoples prior to and after their arrival. After all, they left the ground without a stain. But aren’t they complicit in that colonization and genocide to some degree? I realize that things can be overdetermined rather quickly, but in a very real way, they have come into someone’s house and claimed their living room as their home. And even if they do not personally involve themselves in the violence of colonization, aren’t they benefiting from and dependent on it? And why does Hemans erase Native Americans from the poem? Perhaps she is being somewhat prophetic. Native Americans have essentially been erased from the non-Native American imagination as a real people, which allows for people to debate the appropriateness of calling a sports team the “redskins,” as if there is anything to debate.
But this is the power of narrative. We write the stories in the way that we would like to read them. And we rewrite the stories that don’t fit our views of the world or may put a critical eye on ourselves.